Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ROLAND ONAWOLA, Plaintiff v. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants : : : : : : : : ..o0o..

Civil Action No. AMD 05-1924

MEMORANDUM OPINION Dr. Roland Onawola, acting pro se, brought this action on July 14, 2005, against Johns Hopkins University and various individuals associated with the University, including faculty members, trustees, and deans. Shortly thereafter, defendants filed an alternative motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), which I granted without prejudice, after, and for the reasons stated at length on the record during, an oral hearing.* Dr. Onawola then filed an amended complaint naming the University and a

Remarkably, plaintiff attached 31 exhibits to his original complaint and, while expressly incorporating by reference those 31 exhibits, he attached three more exhibits to the amended complaint. Not satisfied even with that, plaintiff also attached to the amended complaint five of the defendants' exhibits which had been attached to the defendants' original alternative motion. Accordingly, although a review of the file would suggest that this court has before it a motion for summary judgment (because plaintiff has attached sufficient exhibits to tell the story of his entire 14 year career as a student at the University), in fact the court considers only the amended complaint and the plethora of exhibits which plaintiff has incorporated by reference. See, e.g., Phillips v. LCI Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir.1999)(noting that exhibits are not superceded if the amended complaint effectively integrates them and stating that consideration of exhibits that were attached to the original complaint, omitted from the amended complaint, but still referred to and relied upon in the amended complaint, are properly considered on a 12(b)(6) motion)(citing with approval Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998)(observing that such practice furthers the policy of "[p]reventing plaintiffs from surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting . . . . documents upon which their claims are based.")).

*

somewhat shorter list of its faculty as defendants. Complete diversity of citizenship is present, as plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania and all defendants, it appears, are citizens of Maryland. At the court's urging, plaintiff has narrowed his claims to three counts: (1) breach of contract under Maryland law; (2) race discrimination under 42 U.S.C.

Download Roland Onawola v. The Johns Hopkins University.pdf

Maryland Law